Including ...Introduction • Blair Nelson • Don Hammond • President’s Message • Attorney Question • Editor's Notebook • About this Journal
Get eJournal PDF: click here
Impact of Decisions, from Lower Courts to Highest Court
Interviews with Attorneys Blair Nelson and Don Hammond
Court decisions gave us much to ponder this summer starting with worries over how badly the United States Supreme Court opinion issued in United States v. Rahimi eroded the progress gained in 2022 in NYSRPA v. Bruen. It particularly raised concerns about future interpretations of the limits the US Constitution places on government restrictions on possessing guns for self defense (see PDFs of court decisings under Read More link below).
Then, on the last day of July, the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed a court of appeals decision that found a duty to retreat in MN is required before brandishing weapons even if the person acting in self defense does not harm their assailants. 
While MN v Blevins arose from actions we cannot imagine a Network member doing, the resultant caselaw does affect what MN armed citizens may and may not do to stop a threat against them.
Although one applies nationally and the other to a single state, the bigger implications of both cases created a lot of concern amongst armed citizens. As a result, we had several very interesting conversations with Network affiliated attorneys about those decisions and related issues. We hope you enjoy both the California and the Minnesota attorneys' interviews, and the broader applicability to those of us in other states, starting on this month's journal's front page.
Court Decisions
To facilitate your understand of the issues presented in our two interviews with Blair Nelson and Don Hammond, we have provided direct access the various court decisions mentioned.
Minnesota Supreme Court Expands Retreat Requirement
An Interview with Blair Nelson
With the internet exploding over Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision against Earley Romero Blevins, I really appreciated the time Northern MN attorney Blair Nelson took in August to discuss that ruling using clear language and help explain what looked to me, as a layperson, like a substantial expansion in Minnesota’s duty to retreat before one may act in self defense. So much concern has been expressed by Network members that we share our visit with Nelson in our Q & A format below, as well as a less formal video version at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXdzjfKOAK4 .
eJournal: Thank you for agreeing to help us understand what just happened at the Minnesota Supreme Court, Blair. Let’s start by getting to know you and your law practice. You’ve been a Network-affiliated attorney since 2012, and unless I’m mistaken, you’re licensed to practice in both MN and North Dakota. Tell us about your work, please.
Nelson: I’ve been licensed since 1996. My practice has always involved criminal defense work -– exclusively criminal defense and gun law since about 2014. I’ve been certified by the Minnesota Bar Association as a certified specialist in the area of criminal law. I was part of the team in the Worth v. Jacobson case, that is still ongoing to establish the right to carry for young adults in MN that are under 21.
eJournal: I’m afraid your good results in Worth may have been eclipsed in the deafening outcry over the Blevins ruling. We’re hearing terms like duty to retreat, brandishing, and references to other states’ stand your ground laws so much that frankly, it is hard to grasp what the ruling really means for decent, law-abiding people. Despite the court repeatedly stressing that it was a narrow ruling, Blevins has a lot of people extremely worried. Can you synopsize what the state supreme court said Minnesotans may or may not do to stop an evolving threat before they can use force to stop life-threatening injuries?
Bad Facts Make Bad Law
Rahimi, Bruen & CA Carry Permit Denials
An Interview with Don Hammond
In late July, we had a great visit with Don Hammond, a Los Angeles County attorney whom we met several years ago through our affiliated instructor Edmond Tan. The previous month, Don had won an appeal for a client who was denied a concealed carry license. The timing was interesting because his case echoed a supreme court case that was in the news. Don agreed to tell us about the L.A. County case and share his thoughts on bigger issues. For a less formal version, enjoy video of our visit at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEFDfBqYYLw .
eJournal: Thank you for speaking with us, Don. Please tell us about yourself.
Hammond: I’m a criminal defense attorney and founder of the law firm Criminal Defense Heroes, in Torrance, CA, which is in Los Angeles County. I’ve been shooting since I was about eight years old, when I first fired a shotgun. It knocked me on my butt. Now, I am a certified shooting instructor and teach classes with Edmund Tan at Shoot Safe Learning in Lomita.
California now requires a 16-hour class, so we do one day in the classroom and one at the range where I help teach the tactical stuff and the shooting qualifications. In the classroom, I talk about CA’s gun laws, particularly as they apply to pistols and how people who are getting concealed carry licenses can stay out of trouble. I’d rather talk with people in advance about how to do it right, rather than have them in my office three or four months later because they did something they shouldn’t have.
President’s Message
Working as a Team
by Marty Hayes, J.D.
It’s been a while since I reported about Gunsite training, which is where I try to go at least once a year to keep my skills sharp, and to learn new stuff. Normally, it is more skill maintenance and sharpening the edge of the sword, but in the case of the class I took most recently, it was more of a mental course than a skill-building course. That was exactly what I was hoping for.
My wife and I took Advanced Team Tactics for Two last month, and we were both well pleased with this first-time offering by Gunsite. The class was led by three of the most experienced instructors in the world, with a combined resume of over 100 years in the trenches of law enforcement, military and special ops contracting. Here are links to their biographies: https://www.gunsite.com/gunsite-instructors/freddie-blish/ , https://www.gunsite.com/gunsite-instructors/monte-gould/ , https://www.gunsite.com/gunsite-instructors/eric-ingersoll-2/ .
The lectures, blocks of range instruction and tactical exercises were divided up amongst the three instructors, and when one was done lecturing, the other two typically added their own perspectives, which sometimes differed from the others, but it was all good. I like choices.
Attorney Question of the Month
Network Affiliated Attorney Steven M. Harris (Florida) brought to our attention a recent Florida appellate decision granting pretrial self-defense immunity, Smith v. State, available here: https://1dca.flcourts.gov/content/download/2436123/opinion/Opinion_2022-3034.pdf
From the facts of Smith, Attorney Harris asked his fellow Network Affiliated Attorneys to explore the following questions.
For a law enforcement officer or nonsworn, is there any caselaw or jury instruction (Federal or your state) which recognizes the unique and deadly nature of the threat presented by an attempted firearm disarm? Is there an independent statutory basis to independently assert deadly force justification? For example, that the disarm is the attempted commission of a robbery (unlawful taking of the firearm by force).
What arguments would you present in defense of an LEO or armed citizen who used deadly force to prevent being disarmed?
The responses were numerous and we believe members will share our interest in the discussion that started last month at https://armedcitizensnetwork.org/august-2024-attorney-question.
Editor’s Notebook
On Reasonableness
by Gila Hayes
“Reasonable and prudent” are words encountered in classes, articles, books and videos that discuss use of deadly force in self defense. Like the ideal of “common sense,” I have to wonder if the emotional “it’s all about me” attitude so prevalent today blinds many to the objective standard of what is a reasonable, prudent person. I started pondering the concept of reasonableness after Massad Ayoob’s August interview about legal defenses for innocent people. The concept came up again in the interview with MN Attorney Blair Nelson, which leads this edition of the journal.
About this Journal
The eJournal of the Armed Citizens’ Legal Defense Network, Inc. is published monthly on the Network’s website at http://armedcitizensnetwork.org/our-journal. Content is copyrighted by the Armed Citizens’ Legal Defense Network, Inc.
Do not mistake information presented in this online publication for legal advice; it is not. The Network strives to assure that information published in this journal is both accurate and useful. Reader, it is your responsibility to consult your own attorney to receive professional assurance that this information and your interpretation or understanding of it is accurate, complete and appropriate with respect to your particular situation.